header-logo header-logo

Unlawful employment tribunal fees to be paid back

20 October 2017
Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

The government is to pay back all employment tribunal fees—ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court in July—along with 0.5% interest.

It will be paid in stages. In the first stage, the government will contact about 1,000 people who have applied for refunds concerning single claims. The scheme will be opened up four weeks later to everyone else who paid fees.

Those who paid fees can register online at ethelpwithfees@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk or by post at Employment Tribunal Central Office (England and Wales)/Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) Fees, PO Box 10218, Leicester LE1 8EG.

The government said it is also working with trade unions who have supported large multiple claims potentially involving hundreds of claimants.

Trade union Unison won a historic victory in R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, with seven Justices unanimously holding that the government acted unlawfully in introducing fees ranging from £160 to £230 or £950 for further hearings, and as much as £1,200 for certain claims, in July 2013.

Employment lawyers have been expectantly waiting to see how the government would go about paying back the fees. They have highlighted how, while some people paid the unlawful fees, others will have been deterred from bringing their claims.

Unison head of legal services Adam Creme said: ‘The government is now making good on its promise to refund anyone who was unfairly charged to take their employers to court.

‘The government got it very wrong on fees, as ministers found to their cost when they lost at the Supreme Court in the summer. But the real tragedy of the fees fiasco is the thousands of wronged employees who couldn’t afford to shell out to get justice and so lost out. Nothing can be done to help them, or to bring the many unscrupulous employers, who broke the law and got away with it, to court.’

The government has said, in response to a Parliamentary question, that the estimated cost of refunding the fees is £33m.

Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll